baddog

If you are a California voter you have 16 propositions to vote on. If you are confused about any in particular, feel free to present your question here, and I will give you my analysis. No fee.


and i look cool naked by the way

baddog

Glad everyone is so informed . . . good sign

Persius

Prop 72 what do you think?

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE

The one with cops and gambling is spookie.

Then the one with the DNA testing.

Tough stuff.

I crossed off every single fucking republican, not one of them bitches I am voting for.

__________________

baddog

I am voting No on 72. I think that forcing companies over a certain size to provide benefits by law only does two things:

1. Legalized plunder. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor never works.

2. Will cause some businesses from expanding just to avoid going over the number of employees that would require them to start providing health care.

While writing this, it also occurs to me that it could have the effect of driving more business out of CA where they don't have regulations like the proposed one in this measure.

It should also be mentioned that it would result in significant net state revenue loses. Overall unknown net state and local savings or costs.

baddog

Cops? Are you talking about LA County measure A? That raises our sales tax by one-half cent. I am voting No because I do not feel they need to raise taxes, but rather learn to operate under a budget.

Gambling: that would be Props 68 and 70. The people that started 68 decided it was a lost cause and stopped promoting it. It was too late in the process, so it still made the ballot. I was voting Yes, but I guess I could be the only one.

The other was Prop 70. I am voting NO because I am not letting anyone enter into a 99 year contract, especially since right now we have no way of knowing how much the Indian tribes take in under the current system. I am not going to allow them to set up a 99 year contract when sometime down the road we might pass a law that makes them divulge more accurate info, but have them slide by with this 99 year loophole.

bringer

im voting yes on all because its too hard to read

__________________
333-765-551

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE

72 is a no go for me as well.

At least I can say I think a little like ya Baddog

__________________

baddog

Sorry, I forgot Prop 69, the DNA issue.

I am voting YES. I think that it is to my advantage if they have my DNA on file from some prior conviction to keep me from being wrongfully charged on some other matter.

It only applies to felons, so I think that they have lost the right to privacy when convicted of a felony, just like they lose their right to vote or own a handgun.

baddog

When in doubt, vote NO. It isn't like we need additional laws or taxes.

baddog

I may be forced to re-evaluate my position and take my cloths off.

bringer

california sure is a shithole
anything that hurts this state usually gets passed
209 and 187
im moving out of this country
i hear hawaii is nice

__________________
333-765-551

TheEbonyFelony

YES ON STEMCELL RESEARCH

__________________
no you cannot know what im promoting you nosey fucks!

baddog

Did you read the proposition? When I first heard the tv commercials I thought I was for it too, but no way in hell am I authorizing a $6 billion bond to fund research

foolio

Yes, spending money to try to save countless lives is just stupid.


Anyway - what you think about the 3 strikes one?

__________________

ItBurnsWhenIpee

Actually it's $3 billion we get, but we have to pay back $6 billion.

Stem cell research isn't going anywhere, which is great, but California CAN'T afford a fucking huge loan for this when we're already so in debt.

This research will continue all over the world either way

baddog

Why should the State of California fund the research? That is what capitalism is all about. Let private enterprise fund it, and reap the rewards. Trust me, they will do it without my cash donations, and they will be more economic about it.

Prop 66- I say vote YES. When the 3 strikes law was presented to us they said it was only supposed to be for perps that were convicted of violent crimes. They turned it around and made it something it was not meant to be.

It is time to bring it back to what it was originally intended. YES on 66

baddog

I look at the big picture, so yeah, it is a $3 billion bond, that will cost $6 billion to pay back. Hell, make it a low interest loan and I might say yes, but no way can we afford that kind of additional debt.

slavdogg

Its a bill endorsed by venture capitalists
as they dont want to take the risk of investing in stem cell research.
its too risky for them

EscortBiz

prop 66 about the 3 strike law

__________________

Spanking, Medical Fetish, Sleeping, Strap-on Anal Lesbians, Girls Fucking Guys, Handjob site REAL HOT, Shemales, Anal and Ass Licking sites 100% Real EXCLUSIVE with amazing retention, ccbill payouts, lots of content FREE FTP HOSTING

Promote the largest and oldest member paid escort site, Converts 10 times better then any dating site, CCBill payouts

ICQ# 158802076

baddog

Asked and answered

baddog

There is nothing to be gained by the State of California funding this research. Let some socialist country do it if private industry doesn't want to take it on.

$5 submissions

Good call.

__________________

baddog

If they would just eliminate the voting process, and let me make the decisions around here, we would be much better off

slavdogg

i agree
Arnold was on Dennis Miller's show tonight telling voted to vote NO on 66

$5 submissions

I guess this means the Platonic ideal of the Philosopher-King is not dead

__________________

baddog

Arnold is an asshole who is barely qualified to be an actor much less Governor of CA

baddog

Not even close